Top 10 military powers TOPYAPS

[below_freezing]

India cannot be militarily conquered, only from the inside. Even the British did not conquer India. Indians conquered India and then willingly accepted British rule. British bought 1 indian prince, paid them to attack another, slowly over time.

During China's colonial experience, lack of technology was a major factor but DISUNITY was another major factor. The Qing government gave regional warlords too much power, they were individually bought, and the rest is known history.

Modern China and India are no longer collections of princely states with warlords that can be individually bought, and both governments are more or less committed to developing their nations. While there are mistakes on both sides, some more severe than others, the general direction is good. We cannot be militarily conquered.

That does not mean we should relax military preparation overall (but best to relax it towards neighbors as a show of good will). Even someone that cannot conquer your country, can attack it to devastating effect and kill millions, like Japan in 1930's. Preparing military is for saving lives and preventing anyone from thinking of launching a preemtpvei attack.

 

[F-16_Falcon]

The Islamic Republic of Pakistan is the most powerful Islamic nation, we should be in top 7. What a biased list.

 

[satishkumarcsc]

Who cares who is at top....till they do their job well..........this is purely a dick measuring contest according to me.

---------- Post added at 01:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:47 AM ----------

The Islamic Republic of Pakistan is the most powerful Islamic nation, we should be in top 7. What a biased list.

I would rather rate Turkey above you if you are taking just Islamic nations into consideration.

 

[Garry]

India cannot be militarily conquered, only from the inside. Even the British did not conquer India. Indians conquered India and then willingly accepted British rule. British bought 1 indian prince, paid them to attack another, slowly over time.

During China's colonial experience, lack of technology was a major factor but DISUNITY was another major factor. The Qing government gave regional warlords too much power, they were individually bought, and the rest is known history.

Modern China and India are no longer collections of princely states with warlords that can be individually bought, and both governments are more or less committed to developing their nations. While there are mistakes on both sides, some more severe than others, the general direction is good. We cannot be militarily conquered.

That does not mean we should relax military preparation overall (but best to relax it towards neighbors as a show of good will). Even someone that cannot conquer your country, can attack it to devastating effect and kill millions, like Japan in 1930's. Preparing military is for saving lives and preventing anyone from thinking of launching a preemtpvei attack.

that is the exact right analysis ..which i wanted to hear.

 

[F-16_Falcon]

Who cares who is at top....till they do their job well..........this is purely a dick measuring contest according to me.

---------- Post added at 01:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:47 AM ----------



I would rather rate Turkey above you if you are taking just Islamic nations into consideration.

turkey and pakistan are friendly countries.

 

[angeldemon_007]

turkey and pakistan are friendly countries.

Nobody said you are not friends...but here the rating of countries was done without thinking about their friendship or religion. Just because you are Islamic nation or turkey is your friend doesnot mean Pak should be placed in the top 10. Pakistan definitely has a strong armed force and not to mention you are nuclear power and countries will definitely think before attacking you but their are countries more powerful than you.

 

[Riz]

china does not have a qualified air force period... Israelis will rule their skies...forget even talking about the US - we would own Shanghai in the first 30 mins and all the skies...

dude, dont even think to compare yourself with china, they can invade dehli in 15 minuts ,

 

[angeldemon_007]

^^^
He was just excited, just like you....15 minute joke don't even applied to Afghanistan..

 

[below_freezing]

dude, dont even think to compare yourself with china, they can invade dehli in 15 minuts ,

He is not Indian. He is a 100% pure white american, that might look like an Indian but doesn't act or think like one. He even told everyone, he's a 100% pure white american and has nothing to do with India.

 

[gambit]

BRIC at present is economic centric. That is not to say that it will not evolve into a military one, especially when common interest of the block is severely threatened.

Also does not say that the four countries will evolve into a military alliance either. I doubt that the four even associate themselves with those initials.

There is no need to pick a fight with anyone in NATO, since NATO can only 'Afford' to pick fights with tiny countries (which says it all).

You mean like how 'mighty' China can only afford to pick fights with internally dissatisfied monks and its own disaffected citizens? And when faced against a quasi-independent Taiwan, China could not nothing? And when 'mighty' China actually fought against a smaller country (Viet Nam) the PLA got an unexpected bloody nose?

Not to mention NATO needs to consider the geography of the battle theater, resource, military power as well as legit reasons for them to go into war. The fact that they don't always put in the same level of effort i.e. in Libya and the second Iraq invasion means they are a fluctuating power. Many members in NATO are in such a bad state internally that they simply cannot afford to go to war even if they want to.

So when you discuss military powers from one to ten, it only makes sense to not talk in blocks, but instead on individual nations.

The intensity of the military actions are dictated by certain political goals, which can be a response to a threat or as an assignment from a political goal, the latter is Libya. So it is wrong to take the limited military actions in Libya as indicative of NATO's overall military capability. And when an alliance contains a member (US) whose military prowess eclipsed that of all other members' combined, it even make more sense to be cautious in assessing the alliance's military capability. NATO did not dissolved at the collapse of the Soviet Union. Alliance members recognized that even without a threat like the Warsaw Pact, this military centric alliance can still serve as a useful deterrent against potential threats or to keep the peace in its own backyard like the war in Yugoslavia.

 

[DelhiDareDevil]

dude, dont even think to compare yourself with china, they can invade dehli in 15 minuts ,

And India can invade whole of Pakistan in 14 minutes and 59 seconds

 

[rockstarIN]

dude, dont even think to compare yourself with china, they can invade dehli in 15 minuts ,

From where? from China town, delhi?

 

[Bhim]

From where? from China town, delhi?

Its a story like of a poor trader giving hafta to a goon. If anything happens, "I will call my BHAI"," My Bhai is this, My Bhai is that"

Haath mai dum nahi, hum kiissi se kum nahi, lekin hamara Bhai hai na...

 

[DV RULES]

Top 10s seem misleading. I'd say, put it like this:

Top level: US - superpower
2nd level: China Russia - can't be militarily conquered due to resources, technology, military quantity, and geography
3rd level: France UK India, Pakistan - has 1 weakness out of resources, technology, military quantity, or geography
4th level: Japan Germany Israel South Korea - has 2 weakness out of resources, technology, military quantity, or geography

This is more reliable.

I some agree with your list but on 3rd level France should not be. May be we will put India, Pakistan on fourth level alone?
btw post №.14 more suitable military ranking.

 

[DV RULES]

And India can invade whole of Pakistan in 14 minutes and 59 seconds

14 minutes quite long time, in 10 minutes half India will be evaporate by Pakistan strategic forces, rest of in second strike in next 4 minutes, so try not be MR. kHIYALI.
Make some serious & responsible comments please.

This is not 1965.